20 examples, he cited: i) conversations between members of the Magdalena Medio Self-Defense Forces and the military officer in charge of the FTA, known as “Major Hernández,” at La Piñuela military base; ii) the free access that the members of the Magdalena Medio Self-Defense Forces had between military checkpoints; iii) shared use of trucks to travel and conduct operations. He also stated that after meetings, his superior officer would give orders to conduct operations with them, specifically, “to make disappear or take out or capture guerilla members or informants.” He said that the military officers gave orders to the paramilitary members via radio and that at times the paramilitary forces acted as their escort. He claimed that the military troops “conducted ambushes” and would then move out to let the paramilitary forces move in.58 77. The Commission has also heard the statement of Alonso Jesús Baquero Agudelo, who was one of the senior officers of the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio. He stated that “all of the paramilitary commanders have to coordinate with the Army or the Police, any association that they make in the area[;] the duty of each one (…) of them is to work in coordination with the Army, on military operations and exchange intelligence and information.” He claimed that “no paramilitary member can move or do operations without coordinating with the public security forces.” He also stated that “it was our job to do what the Army was not able to do, in other words the facility to do quicker operations than the Army, and that we could do massacres, which the Army could not.59” 2. Situation of Vereda La Esperanza 78. The village Vereda La Esperanza is located along the Medellín-Bogotá highway and is one of the 54 villages of the municipality of El Carmen de Viboral, Antioquia.60 La Esperanza abuts the municipality of Cocorná61 and is located a few meters from La Piñuela military base.62 2.1 Military Presence in Vereda La Esperanza 79. According to the plan creating the FTA, different “hot spots” were identified, which are “areas where the enemy has an effect on accomplishing the mission.”63 In this context, Vereda La 58 Annex 16. Statement of Staff Sergeant Luis Fernando Guerrero Burbano to the National Directorate of Special Investigations of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation, Antioquia Section, dated November 16, 1995. Initial statement No. 009-151553. Annex to petitioners’ communication of October 5, 2000. 59 Annex 25. Statement of Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo to the National Unit of Human Rights Prosecutor’s Offices, dated December 11, 1997. Annex to petitioners’ submission received by the IACHR on February 1, 2007. 60 Annex 19. Submission of the Corporación Jurídica Libertad to the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, filed on April 2, 2007. Annex to petitioners’ communication of July 1, 1999; Annex 20. Statement of Luis Eleazar Gallego Castaño to the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman of El Carmen de Viboral, dated June 27, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of July 1, 1999. 61 Annex 26. Report No. 047-2551-2560-032-FGN-DR-CTI-SIE, dated August 15, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of October 5, 2000; Annex 27. Evaluation report on the visit to El Carmen de Viboral, conducted by the National Directorate of Special Investigations of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation, Antioquia Section, dated July 17, 1996. Annex to petitioners’ communication of October 5, 2000. 62 Annex 21. Report No. 093 of the Office of information and Analysis of the Sectional Directorate of the Technical Investigation Corps of the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, dated August 19, 1996. Book No. 1. Compact disk attached to petitioners’ communication of June 24, 2010. 63 Annex 17. Plan No. 000969/BR4-BIOSP-S3-375, which is issued by the Ingeniero Pedro Nel Ospina Battalion Command for control over the Medellin-Bogota highway under the responsibility of the Águila Task Force for February 1 to April 30, 1995, dated February 1, 1995. Annex to petitioners’ communication of September 1, 2004.